‘An Inconvenient Truth’ reveals insights on Al Gore and his passions.

‘An Inconvenient Truth’ reveals insights on Al Gore and his passions.
Warming up to the man INTERVIEW
Those who recall the 2000 presidential election might well remember Al Gore the caricature.
You know: the guy who invented the Internet (though he never said that); the debate robot in Day-Glo orange makeup; the policy wonk given to odd phrases such as “lock box” while George W. Bush cranked out zingers about “fuzzy math.”
Thus, one of the biggest surprises of the DVD documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” (Paramount Home Video, $29.99) comes not through its convincing message about global warming — vital as that is — but the portrait it presents of Gore the man. Here we see a father who nearly lost his young son; a person whose environmental passions date to his college days; a gifted orator with a Merlot-dry sense of humor befitting Garrison Keillor more than an android.
So what happened, Mr. Vice President? Why didn’t voters see that side of you back in 2000? “I think that people see candidates through a different lens, and that’s part of the difference here,” Gore said. “But there’s also a grain of truth to the old cliché that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and maybe I’ve gained a little strength in six years.”
In an interview Gore reflected the same laid-back but concerned demeanor he shows in the Davis Guggenheim film.
Q. Mr. Vice President, are you running for president in 2008?
A. I’m not planning to be a candidate again. I am planning to be involved in a different kind of campaign to help change people’s minds and hopefully that will result in influencing candidates on all sides.
So is it fair to say that you think global warming is the most important issue of all — ahead of, say, the war on terror?
That is certainly the way I think about it, and that is the way the scientists (who study climate change) think about it. It is certainly a challenge to the moral imagination because it is so big and so threatening…. If we choose not to act, the consequences would be unthinkable….We have everything we need to solve the issue except the will to act. But that, too, as the movie points out, is a renewable resource.
You talk in the movie about how Congress has refused to take global warming seriously in the past. With the dramatic turnaround in the November elections, do you expect the Democratic-controlled House and Senate to take action?
I do have extra hope in the wake of this election simply because the new committee chairs have a very different approach compared to the old chairs in the Senate and the House. The Senate Environmental Committee was chaired by James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who was one of the largest skeptics and backed by the big industry polluters. He’s now replaced by Barbara Boxer of California, who is a supporter of bold action to solve the crisis.
Can we expect to see you stumping on Capitol Hill for global warming legislation or to chat up legislators?
I’ve already gotten some calls from congressmen and senators who wanted advice in putting together legislation, and in January I will be talking to quite a number of them to help inform them on this issue. Still, most of my attention will be focused on trying to change minds at the grassroots, at the public level. What we need is a critical mass of people involved.
Do you think there’s been a change on that grassroots level, that people are finally starting to embrace this as a crisis that needs attention?
I’ve seen the beginnings of that sea change, not only in this country but around the world but only the beginnings. If we continue to spread the word, we will pass a tipping point where people will demand action. But we are in a race with the crisis, which can also pass a tipping point.
The film sheds light on how Philip Cooney, President Bush’s chief of staff for the Council on Environmental Quality, a former oil industry lobbyist, doctored government reports on global warming. When the news broke in 2005, he resigned and accepted a job at ExxonMobil. What was your reaction?
I found it to be shocking, quite frankly. It’s one of the things that puzzles me, that there’s not more outrage about it. Allowing someone who is a shill for polluters and has no scientific training — allowing such a person to censor the scientists, who are trying to warn people of what their findings show — that’s outrageous, in my opinion.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/16338487.htm?source=rss&channel=kansascity_entertainment